Sunspots May Be Different During This Solar Minimum 95
PhreakOfTime writes "According to Bill Livingston and Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, sunspot magnetic fields are waning. The two respected solar astronomers have been measuring solar magnetism since 1992. Their technique is based on Zeeman splitting of infrared spectral lines in radiation emitted by iron atoms in the vicinity of sunspots. Extrapolating their data (PDF) into the future suggests that sunspots could completely disappear within decades." To motivate their interest the researchers mention the Maunder Minimum, which occurred beginning in 1645 and coincided with the coldest part of the so-called "Little Ice Age." Sunspot counts during this period were as low as 1/1,000 of the numbers seen in modern times.
Re:Global climate change (Score:2, Interesting)
This should counteract global warming.
global warming heretic (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:WHERE IS YOUR GLOBAL WARMING NOW??? (Score:3, Interesting)
At least it stomps right on all the "it's just solar activity!" claims when it comes to temperature differences.
Re:Something doesn't add up. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the controversy basically boils down to the following: Correlation is not causation.
Re:global warming heretic (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Something doesn't add up. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see what's "unscientific" about claiming that low numbers of sunspots cause global cooling. Fewer sunspots mean less energy from the sun. Although the spot is relatively cool, the area around it is very much hotter.
Re:Something doesn't add up (I think it does) (Score:3, Interesting)
But something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle. The current solar minimum has been unusually long, and with more than 670 days without sunspots through June 2009, the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933
As to the "low number of sun spots and a temperature spike", more from TFA:
...posted on the Internet and led to some misunderstanding when a few authors from other fields cited that post and erroneously concluded that a lack of sunspots could explain global warming
This is something worth following closely:
Four years after the first draft paper, the predicted cycle-independent dearth in sunspot numbers has proven accurate. The vigor of sunspots, in terms of magnetic strength and area, has greatly diminished...Whether this is an omen of long-term sunspot decline, analogous to the Maunder Minimum, remains to be seen.
Note in this chart on Wikipedia that temps have been trending downward for thousands of years, as if we are plunging into the next glacial period.
Chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [wikipedia.org]
See here in general about the time since the most recent glacial period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene [wikipedia.org]
Re:Something doesn't add up (post is good timing) (Score:3, Interesting)
According to data from the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala., the global high temperature in 1998 was 0.76 degrees Celsius (1.37 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average for the previous 20 years. So far this year, the high has been 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit), above the 20-year average, clearly cooler than before.
Re:Maybe it does (Re:Something doesn't add up) (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh, no, it doesn't. The trend line for sunspots on that chart, peaked in 1960, and have been on a declining trend ever since. Meanwhile temperatures (on that chart) have been on the upswing.
Solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect [reuters.com], but instead we've seen warming. Solar variations are not the main driver of the climate change we are currently experiencing.
Re:global warming heretic (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh FFS, we are talking about a net change in arriving solar radiation of less than 0.1% over 11 year cycles, and though its likely there are some larger fluctuations that modulate the 11 year cycle, we haven't been measuring long enough. The notion that this data predicts a 'mini-ice age' is about as useful as using sunspot counts to predict the weather. Which is not useful at all. Sun spot counts don't predict weather at all. Even the proxies don't really link us to what is going on, though they do seem to loosely track solar oscillations. How long is the lag on those proxy relationships? Are they indicative of some other process that is being influenced by solar activity? No one knows. We don't have long enough direct solar activity measurements.
As the dominant dim bulbs around here are fond of echoing: Correlation is not causation.
As for global climate change due to our Industrial Age farting dinosaurs back into the atmosphere, we do need to get a grip on that. I doubt very seriously that some prediction of a long solar minimum is going to change the outcome much, if at all.